Was Marciano superior defensively to Tyson, and Frazier?

No they wouldn’t be comparable. I would assume you’d have to go to age 32. For all. Marciano and Frazier retired at the same and Marciano was nowhere near physical prime. You can go add up Tysons if you can find them but it won’t make a huge difference id wager.

 

Just stop, he retired after one of his best performances. I already told you why Frazier and Marciano's ages aren't comparable. Age is an absolutely **** way of comparing primes in boxing.

And you don't think the batterings he got off Holyfield, Lewis, Williams and McBride, as well as the wars with Rudduck wouldn't effect his percentage much?

 

Well I'll go ahead and state the obvious, Tyson didn't take Douglas seriously and dropped the team that helped him win the title due to King's influence. Rocky had the same trainer his while career and never slacked. All credit goes to him for the latter, but it's a factor that can't be dismissed.

I do agree that Tyson should have dug deep and went balls to the wall crazy on Douglas if nothing else was working. He was the champion and should defend his title with his life. I see where you're going with this. The problem is a focused Tyson wouldn't have gotten nailed nearly and may have even beaten Douglas. He beat many boxers who were as good as or better than Douglas and beat a boxer who actually defeated Douglas. That's why the odds were so high and the result was so shocking. Granted, Douglas was fired up and ready for war that night but it would be silly to suggest it would make no difference at all if Tyson was 100% focused with his old team.

I wasn't writing off Rocky's opponents. They were indeed highly skilled veterans. I was simply saying that since they were older and more shopworn it was a little bit easier to block and evade their punches regardless of how high they were ranked. That's the part you and Gazelle aren't getting.

Hence why I keep repeating for maybe the 5th time now it skews the numbers and puts an asterisk* there.

Define "untested" because a lot of the boxers you mentioned already had world class experience, beat ranked fighters, and had even been champions before facing Tyson and Frazier.

The crucial difference being Spinks was undefeated and he wasn't shopworn with tons of mileage or bad knockouts. He was also the only ex light HW Tyson fought to my knowledge. Spinks was also the legitimate lineal champion. Moore on the other hand was the bridesmaid and never the bride. He failed in every attempt to win the HW title. Spinks was objectively the more successful heavyweight.

The vast majority of Tyson's opponents were over 6 ft and over the 200 pound mark. The vast majority were not well over 30 with 70+ fights on their record and double digit losses.

Likewise Frazier fought several big bonafide heavies like Ali, Mathis, Bugner, etc. The only ex light heavy he fought was Foster and he demolished him very quickly. That is quite different from Rocky going life and death with guys who were not only ex light heavies, but fairly old as well. Foster and Spinks were tbe EXCEPTION to Frazier and Tyson's opponents and they both destroyed them quickly.

Cokkel, Mathews, Charles, and Moore were 4 of Rocky's best opponents and they were all ex light heavies. All had tons of mileage and had been stopped numerous times.

 

No I think lack of training and mental problems affected his averages. But you know what that’s part of life. You can’t make people train. You can’t make people be at their best for every fight and you can’t pretend they didn’t exist because they weren’t “at their best”. Frazier after beating Ali like many champs (Marciano included) started getting lazy in training same for Tyson. Are you going to tell me Frazier didn’t still look good in Thrilla? Or Foreman 2 even? He wasn’t like old Ali against Holmes or anything. Marciano was far from physical prime come Charles on. You could see it in his loss of explosiveness. Compare that man to Layne or Louis fights and you see the stark difference. He did improve his style later but that’s still not the same as being physically prime.
As far as affecting averages I’ve stated my case which many don’t want to talk about. There are no bums on Marcianos compubox stats. Only the filmed fights were done. That kind of cancels out the bums that were recorded for maybe Tyson. And like I’ve stated even if you give Tyson an extra few points for better competition it still doesn’t add up. Five points is a lot. It’s beyond human error at that point and other variables.

 

I'm not ignoring anything. Actually you bring up a good point: Rocky didnt have much of an amateur career (I think just 8 fights?). The fact he started late and didn't have many amateur fights means he was fresh as a daisy and didn't have as much wear and tear as Frazier who battled it out as an Olympian and Tyson who was training at the D'Amato school since he was like 15 and also had an extensive amateur background.

You just helped prove my point. Tyson and Frazier had longer careers and more wear and tear by virtue of their amateur experience and starting as pros younger. They both fought in stacked divisions full of prime athletic fighters.

In contrast by the time Rocky reached his peak and world level experience the majority of the division was burnt out fighting each other:

-Walcott and Chalres fought 4 savage battles with each other and were in their 30's. Walcott had 12 losses, Charles was moving up from light heavy and also had a career at middleweight and even had amateur experience at 147 unless im mistaken.
-Louis literally had an entire career before coming back in as a gunshy 30 year old. He also had an amateur background and had been in many wars. He fought walcott 2x and Charles 1x.
-Moore had an entire very long light heavyweightt career before moving up to heavyweight. He fought Valdez, Charles, Shepard, etc and had been in more than 100 fights before fighting Rocky at 38.
-Cokkel had a long light heavyweight career before moving to heavyweight and had been in nearly twice as many bouts as Rocky. He had gotten KO'd numerous times.
-Savold had an incredibly long career and had already gotten demolished by Louis before facing Rocky.

To quote Larry Holmes: "He was a Young guy fighting old guys and I was an old guy fighting young guys".

Where do you get the idea Frazier and Tyson's opponents were older on average?

Frazier's best opponents:

-Bonavena 26
-Jones 29
-Chuvalo 29
-Mathis 24
-Zyglewics 25
-Quarry 24
-Ellis 29
-Ali 29
-Foreman 24
-Bugner 23

Average: 26 years old

Tyson:

-Tillis 28
-Ribalta 23
-Berbick 32
-Smith 33
-Thomas 29
-Tucker 28
-Biggs 26
-Holmes 38
-Tubbs 30
-Spinks 31
-Bruno 27
-Williams 29
-Douglas 29
-Stewart 26
-Ruddock 27
-Holyfield 34

Average: 29 years old

Rocky:

-Lastarza 22
-Layne 23
-Louis 37
-Savold 36
-Mathews 29
-Walcott 38
-Charles 32
-Cokkel 26
-Moore 38

Averwge: 31 years old.

I don't know WHAT data you're looking at but Rocky's average opponent if we pick his best opponents is definitely older than Tyson and Frazier.

 

Tysons opponents age on average was def higher then Marcianos. Frazier’s to be honest I’m not 100 percent but even so you can see it won’t be far off. The data comes from someone else doing it on this forum. They took the time and did the averages of all the great HWs. I wish I remembered who did it to find the post.
As far as divisions go was the division ever weaker then when Tyson came up? I’d take the 50s HWs over the 80s any day.
You’re arguing in circles because though because I agree Marcianos overall competition was weaker then both. I have no idea why you keep trying to hammer that point home. They weren’t invalids though as you seem to think they were world class fighters all of which were winning at the time. It isn’t the first time divisions were ruled by older fighters and it won’t be the last (think the average AJ opponent is like 35). These are straw man arguments meant to discredit a great fighter. To me Archie Moore is the greatest fighter never to win the HW championship. He fought more fights at HW then most great HWs do. So being a LHW at one point means nothing.

 

Lastarza was 26 he wasn’t 36
Harry Matthews 29
Charles was 32 and then 33
Rex Layne was 23
Lee Savold was 36 not 37
Let’s not be intellectually dishonest now. Some more then convenient people left off. I’m also sure Vingo footage wasn’t used for compubox purposes. It’s like 15 sec of grainy unusable footage. As far as going life and death who the hell knows and who cares? Has nothing to do with anything. You also never thoroughly dissected anything lol. You made silly smiley faces and said you rather believe your eyes. There is no other way to measure these things other then count the punches. Same standards are applied to everyone. If the roles were reversed and Marcianos numbers were weaker you’d be citing the numbers. But it doesn’t fit your narrative that Marciano was somehow poor defensively so you’re making a plow attempt at ridiculing the method. It’s not a perfect method but it’s the best and only indicator we have. Because I certainly don’t trust your eyes.

 

You said your defensive compubox stats were based only on Tyson, Frazier, and Rocky's best opponents/filmed fights right?

So why would you then take the average ages of of EVERY opponent they fought? The only way to be consistent is to take the average ages of Tyson, Frazier, and Rocky's best opponents. Which is what I did. Rocky's opponents were older on average.

You contradicted yourself. You said the 80's was weaker than the 50's then you admitted Tyson faced better competition than Rocky.

AJ's era is pretty weak? I completely agree considering Povetkin, Wladmir, and Pulev were in their 40's yet were ranked #1 in his era. When a bunch of guys in their late 30's and early 40's are in the top 10, that's usually a sign that an era is weak.

You can call Moore the best fighter to not win the HW title and give all the praise if you want. It doesn't change the fact that he was 38 with more than 100 fights under his belt and had worse reflexes and timing when he was in his 20's. This is a biological fact.

 

Tyson faced better competition in the 90s obviously.
I didn’t do the compubox stats but considering compubox wasn’t around for Frazier or Marciano I’m pretty sure they just used what footage was available to them for each fighter. The source is Ali : By the numbers
In the book they compare Ali to 11 other fighters
Marciano, Tyson, Frazier, Holyfield, Liston, Foreman, Lewis, Louis, Dempsey, Holmes.

 

Tyson only faced 2 elite opponents in the 90's: Holyfield and Lewis. He was past his prime against both, especially Lewis where he was completely shot and fighting for money.

The only other decent fighters he faced im the 90's were Bruno (whom he already beat in the 80's) and Seldon (who looked like he took a dive honestly).

I find it funny you complain people use Rocky vs Louis because that was before Rocky hit his prime but you're fine with using fights where Tyson was clearly way past his prime.

In the 80's, many of the opponents I listed such as Biggs, Tucker, Ruddock, etc were ranked in the top 10 or belt holders. They weren't the most marvelous ir amazingly skilled opponents but they were far from weak. And more importantly, they were in their prime, athletic, and didn't have tons of losses.

You're not being consistent Gazelle.

You can't use averages of ALL opponents for their ages to make a point, then narrow it down to only the best opponents when discussing who got hit less often.

 

What are you talking about lol? I didn’t use any fights as any example. I only pointed out he fought better competition in the 90s then the 80s do you dispute that lol?
I DIDNT DO THE AVERAGES. Compubox did. If you have an issue with the results take it up with them. You just don’t like the outcome.

 

do you dispute that Tyson was past his prime in the 90's?

Only 2 of his opponents in the 90's were better. The vast majority of his best opponents were actually in the 80's. Most of his opponents in the 90's were bums or tune ups. Peter McNealy? Buster Mathis Jr? Were they better than Thomas, Tucker, Ruddock, Spinks, etc?

What part of Rocky retired earlier than Tyson and Frazier and that he had a very short amateur career do you not understand?

What part of Rocky's best opponents were past their physical prime and were thus easier to avoid getting hit by them?

What part of Tyson and Frazier faced better opposition, younger fresher opponents and yet looks better on film do you not get?

Like do you need to take reading comprehension classes? What is so difficult about this?

I didn't say YOU made the compubox stats. What I'm saying is the compubox numbers are based only on cherry picked fights and include several bouts where Tyson and Frazier were way past their prime. It's flawed because it doesn't include many of Rocky's unfilmed bouts. If you don't get why that's a problem with consistency and still stick to the compubox numbers then I'm done talking to you.

 

You helped my argument by stating Tyson fought a lot of bums. Something compost at would cover that Marciano doesn’t have the privilege to do. Tyson faced Ruddock in the 90s by the way not the 80s Buster Douglas, Golata, and more and you’re getting way off topic .
And Marciano and Frazier retired at the same age. What are you talking about? Getting way off topic because you have no argument and you’re repeating yourself. How many times must I state that they had better competition? Your reading comprehension is nonexisten because you failed to answer a single question and you keep coming up with false ages and misinformation.
The difference in opposition doesn’t add up to what would make a difference. Your eyes obviously deceive you because you’re wrong. Wether you think you’re right or not is irrelevant. Because you’re wrong.
I hate to break it to you but you could minus several of their tougher fights (tyson and Frazier) and the results won’t be any different. That’s how averages over a long career work. One or two fights don’t make a huge difference.

 

Marciano didn't have the privilege of fighting bums?

What would you call

9-15-1 Jimmy Walls?

22-20-4 Eatman?

4-14-3 Harold Mitchel?

They weren't bums? The fighters I picked, Biggs, Ruddock, Berbick, Tucker, Thomas, Williams, etc were all ranked and/or belt holders in their prime. If they're bums almost any boxer on any resume is a bum. And Tyson was knocking them out before he was even 26. When Rocky was 26 he was fighting 63-49-9 Ted Lowry. This is not a battle you are going to win.

I didn't help your argument at all. Go look at Tyson's bouts in the 80's against Biggs, Thomas, Tucker, etc and tell me the punch stats. Tyson rarely got hit in his prime. For ****s sake all you have to do is WATCH the fights! If you think Rocky displayed better defense in his fights with walcott and Charles than Tyson did against Spinks, Berbick, Holmes then you are DELUSIONAL and I have nothing else to say.

Frazier had a long amateur career and fought in the olympics. Rocky had 8 fights. Frazier cleaned out the division BEFORE he was 30 and won the fight of the century. Rocky feasted on bums for ages and then finally stepped up when he was in his late 20's.

Let me spell it out for you: Frazier. And. Rocky. Did. Not. Age. At. The. Same. Rate.

They didn't even debut at the same age. Rocky debuted at 24. Frazier debuted at 21 and was already fighting guys like 21-2 Bonavena in his 12th fight. Rocky fought 4-10 Gilley Ferron in his 12th fight.

If we focus only on the best opponents they fought in their primes the numbers absolutely would not favor Rocky. I'm not changing the subjects I've said this like 4 ****ing times now.

My eyes do not deceive me. Do yours? Do you not SEE that 38 people disagree with you? Oh I forgot you don't care what other people think.

This is hopeless. Have a good night.